2
VOCABULARY TO HOMER, ILIAD VI 383-519
P.J. PARSONS
Box R11A: D X/25
Plate 2
13 x 21.5 cm.
III p.C.?
Soknopaiou Nesos?
P.Sijp. 2 comes from a box of Fayum papyri collected by Grenfell and Hunt; it is published here by
permission of the Egypt Exploration Society. The inventory number ‘D 25’ (noted in ink on the recto)
suggests that the papyrus originated from Dîme. There is no record of excavation on this site during the
Fayum campaigns financed by the Egypt Exploration Fund and (later) the Graeco-Roman Branch of the
Egypt Exploration Society (see the overview in T.G.H. James ed., Excavating in Egypt [London 1982]
177f.; on the first campaign of 1896 see now D. Montserrat, “No Papyrus and No Portraits,” BASP 33
[1996] 131-74). It may be, then, that P.Sijp. 2, and others, were purchased at the site, recently identified
as Soknopaiou Nesos.
One side of P.Sijp. 2 carries scrappy remains of two columns in small cursive, written parallel with the fibres.
Near the left edge, an extra strip 3 cm. wide runs parallel with the height of the roll; this too shows a few
traces of cursive, but since the original text seems to disappear beneath it we can conclude that the strip was
added as reinforcement — added, presumably, when the roll was reused. Upper and lower margins survive,
unless the narrow lower margin is just an illusion caused by paragraphing (see note on ii 21ff.): if so, the roll
was not cut down when it was reused.
On the other side (the verso, presumably, of the original roll), and the same way up, stand two columns
(full height) of a vocabulary to Iliad Book VI, ending with the colophon and an elaborate coronis. The
surface is rough, which explains the gappiness of the writing; this, and variations in the size and spacing of
letters, make it relatively difficult to estimate for supplements. In most entries, a blank of one or two letters
divides lemma from gloss. When entries run over the single line, the continuation is indented, normally by
one or two letters.
The hand has its eccentricities. Notable letter forms are: e and ! straight-backed, often sloping, the cap
added as a separate straight stroke (in ! this cap, in e the cross-bar tend to project); m with splayed legs and
deep bow; n often has its right-hand junction at mid- or high-level; v wide, the central kink flattened. This all
suggests an informal version of the ‘Severe Style.’ By contrast, there is a tendency to bilinearity which
shortens r and even f so that they project little if anything below the line. The scribe also shows a certain
amateurishness in combining variant forms of the same letter (a pointed and looped), and variations of size
(notable in the width of e); he allows himself ligatures of ai and ei. t sometimes has its vertical curved; most
extraordinary is p, the first vertical strongly curved.
Dating semi-literary hands is always difficult; and I can produce no useful parallel for this one, which
seems to hover between styles. We do have two external indications. The cursive on the recto is hardly later
than the III century A.D.; the papyrus itself, if it really comes from Soknopaiou Nesos (but of course it may
simply have been purchased there), should antedate the abandonment of the site, i.e. the middle of the III
century. A date in the III century could also be argued from the palaeography: some features (notably the
2. VOCABULARY TO HOMER, ILIAD VI 383-519
5
forms of e and !) suggest developments of the Severe Style in the IV century and later, and the shape of the
coronis might chime with that (ii 21ff. note); the truncated descenders look earlier.
The eccentricity of the hand, and the elaboration of the coronis, suggest to me an ambitious amateur. The
orthography may point in the same direction. Apart from venial itacisms, the writer allowed himself xvsyh
for xvsth (i 19), varize for oarize (ii 12) and hsyeie for hyeie (ii 13) — all phonetic errors. At the same time,
he tends to avoid assimilation, even in mid-word (i 5 ali]nkion, 15 ananka-, ii 11 ri`n`fa). In Attic inscriptions,
such unassimilated spellings occur rarely in the classical period, more commonly in the hellenistic and
Roman periods (L. Threatte, Grammar of Attic Inscriptions I [Berlin-New York 1980] 595-601); in papyri,
sometimes in Ptolemaic documents, occasionally later (E. Mayser - H. Schmoll, Grammatik der griechischen
Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit I 12 [Berlin-New York 1970] 209f.; F.T. Gignac, Grammar of the Greek Papyri
of the Roman and Byzantine Periods I [Milan 1976] 170f.). The usage of literary copyists has yet to be
systematically investigated; Crönert’s early study of the Herculaneum library concluded that unassimilated
spellings were more characteristic of less careful scribes (Memoria Graeca Herculanensis [Leipzig 1903]
57f.). Assimilation seems to lose ground first in compound words, from a desire to discriminate the
etymological elements; and then, by analogy, within simple words. In P.Sijp. 2, we could recognise the
amateur compiler’s zeal for correctness.
The text is a vocabulary to Homer of common type, in a tradition from which descend the glossographic
D-scholia (published by Janus Lascaris, Scholia in Homeri Iliadem, quae vocantur Didymi/SxÒlia ceudep€grafa DidÊmou [Rome 1517]. Now, however, the reader will wish to check with the new edition of the Dscholia by Professor H. van Thiel, accessible at <http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/vanthiel/>, which has
appeared since the time of writing.). For discussions of the papyrus texts, see A. Henrichs, “Scholia Minora
zu Homer,” ZPE 7 (1971) 97-149, 229-60; 8 (1971) 1-12; 12 (1973) 17-43; F. Montanari, Studi di filologia
omerica antica (Pisa 1979); id., Ricerche di filologia classica 2 (Pisa 1984) 125-38; L.M. Raffaelli, ibid.
139-77 (list of texts); R. Cribiore, Writing, Teachers and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta 1996)
50-51; ead., “Literary School Exercises,” ZPE 116 (1997) 58 (list of texts). The most up-to-date list of texts
now appears in the Center for Hellenic Studies’ website Homer & the Papyri, accessible at
<http://www.chs.harvard.edu/homer_papyri/>. Such vocabularies naturally played a part in schools; and a
famous private letter, P.Oxy. VI 930 (W.Chr. 138, Sel.Pap. I 130), shows Iliad VI being read by schoolboys.
But we have no means of telling whether P.Sijp. 2 is the work of a schoolmaster, or an advanced pupil, or an
adult littérateur. Whoever it was muddled the sequence in three places (i 22, 25; ii 11).
The tradition of Homeric glosses is complex. The apparatus given below aims only to collect some
material relevant to the reconstruction of the text, above all from the D-scholia and from the lexicon of
A(pollonius) S(ophista). (In citing the D-scholia, I have been able, by the courtesy of Mr. N.G. Wilson, to
consult the collation by the late Professor V. De Marco; the Mss. are C, H, V and R, La = the edition of
Lascaris; Q = the agreement of HRV and La.) A proper assessment of the place of this papyrus in the
tradition will require a full treatment of parallels and partial parallels (see for the pattern P.Oxy. LVI 3832).
Meantime a few remarks may be made. The papyrus offers a very partial list (thus, for ll. 383-487, 17 or 18
lemmata against ca. 70 in D); within the list, some passages are quite heavily glossed, others passed over. By
and large, coincidence with D is substantial, though the papyrus’ entries are often shorter. But in some places
the papyrus chooses an alternative which has come to us by a different route: i 22 and 24 Apollonius
Sophista; i 19 and ii 5-6 Hesychius.
6
P.J. PARSONS
Recycled papyrus of poor quality; a sprawling and irregular script; orthography both pedantic and vulgar;
a text idiosyncratically selective — all this suggests that we are dealing, not with a substantive copy of a
standard vocabulary, but with a private compilation to which the ambitious coronis hopes to add a
professional flourish.
col. i
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
einat]e`rew a[d]elfvn
383 (378)
gun]ai`kew [ ]
polu]d`v`row` [ ] pol
394
la dv]ra eilh`fueia
ali]nkion` omoion
401
ammor]o`n kakomoron
408
yalp]v`rh xa`ra
412
ente]s`i oploiw
418
eilip]o`daw taw
424
bouw] ap`o thw po
reia]w
` ` ` ` ` ``] ` `v`n peri
438
` ` ` ` ` `]vn
aekazo]m`e`nh akou
458
sa k]a`[i] ananka
zom]e`n`h`
xhtei s]pa`n`i` k`a`[i]
463
sterh]sei
xuth ]xvsyh`
464
atuxy]eiw ekp`la
468
geiw]
faidimo]w lamprow
466
kuse ] efilhse
474
brotoen]ta pefoneumena
480
` ` ` ` ` ` `] `v`v ` ` xairo`u`[ ] ` `
akaxiz]e`o lupou
486
uper ais]an para thn
487
eimar]menhn
col. ii
1
4
` ` ``]o di` `[
` ` ``]fyeir[
` `] `is `[ ` `] `yar `[
k`rai`p`n`o`i`w t`ax`[esi
a]kosths`a`w ad`[hn
p`l`hrvyei[w
505
506
2. VOCABULARY TO HOMER, ILIAD VI 383-519
8
12
16
20
kro`ainvn e `[
agl`aeihfi` ` `[
kal`[l ]ei [
h`lektvr` o hl`[iow
ri`n`fa ta`xe`[vw
varize vm[ilei
hsyeie
prosfv``[nh
siw nevterou` [
prow pr`e`sb`ut`[eron
essum[e]non e`[
formvnta [
enaisi`mon` k`a`[
y`hkontvn` k`ai` [
eiw on d`ei` ka`i`ro`n` [
THS
7
507
510
513
511
516
518
518
519
Z— /
CORONIS
col. i
1-2. On efinat°rvn, 378 or 383. Here, as at i 9, the actual lemma is omitted. D on 378: efinãterew kaloËntai
afl t«n édelf«n guna›kew prÚw éllÆlaw, oÂon ÑEl°nh prÚw ÉAndromãxhn Q. Schol. AT Il. 22.473c
efinãterew d¢ afl t«n édelf«n guna›kew prÚw éllÆlaw.
3-4. D: ≥toi pollå d«ra laboËsa parå toË mnhsteusam°nou, µ pollå d«ra §penegkam°nh t“ toË éndrÚw
o‡kƒ Q. Hesych. pollå laboËsa d«ra.
4.
As restored, no indentation.
5.
D: ˜moion Q. AS 21.14 él€gkiow ˜moiow. ali]nkion` does not fill the space at the line-beginning: did
the scribe indent, by confusion with 4? Or did he write enaligkion by mistake?
6.
D: dÊsmoron, kakÒmoron Q. AS 29.9 êmmoron pot¢ m¢n kakÒmoron [quoting this line], pot¢ d° ...
.
7.
D: xarã, ≤donÆ, paramuy€a Q. AS 86.4 xarã. ı d¢ ÉAp€vn ≤donÆ ktl.
8.
D: ˜ploiw Q. AS 69.17 ¶ntea tå ˜pla ...
9-11. Presumably on 424 bous‹n §pÉ efilipÒdessi. D: efil€podaw §piyetik«w l°gei tåw boËw, ˜ti •l€ssousi
toÁw pÒdaw katå tØn pore€an Q. AS 64.3 efil€podaw: diå tÚ •ligmÚn épotele›n §n tª pore€& toÁw pÒdaw.
It is not clear whether the copyist omitted the lemma, or adapted it to the basic form glossed in his dictionary.
12-13. I have considered two restorations. (i) (438) yeopro]p`i`vn per‹ | [mante€]vn suits the space; the trace
suits pi fairly well, iota badly (much ink unaccounted for), unless it has been heavily corrected. No gloss in
D; AS has mãnteuma, Hesych. mante›on; space would require the shorter word here. (ii) (443) alusk]a`z`vn
peri[ ` ` ` ` ` `]vn. Although the text there requires éluskãzv, D has éluskãzvn: §kkl€nvn, §kfeÊgvn (Q;
feÊgvn R). This lemma too fits the space, and zeta suits more of the ink. But no obvious gloss of the shape
peri[ ` ` ` ` ` `]vn offers. D gives the two regular glosses (cf. AS 23.1, 28). Other possibilities appear in
Hesych. (Cyril) éluskãzv: plan«mai SP §kkl€nv P §kfeÊgv Sb; Hesych. éluskãzein: épodidrãskein; Photius
A 1063 Th. éluskãzein: tÚ diekdÊesyai ka‹ épodidrãskein. µ peri€stasyai, §kkl€nein. The participial form
has apparently intruded from Od. 17.581; it would be interesting if P.Sijp. 2 already attested this anomaly.
14-16. D: êkousa ka‹ mØ boulom°nh. oÈx •koËsa, éllÉ énagkazom°nh Q. AS 9.32 éekazom°nouw
ßkontaw [êkontaw Villoison].
8
P.J. PARSONS
17-18. D: xre€& H sterÆsei RVLa spãnei Q. AS 167.33 xÆtei: §nde€&. Disordered fibres make the dotted
letters doubtful, but apparently s]pa`n`i` not s]pa`n`e`i`.
19.
D: ≤ §pixeom°nh to›w nekro›w g∞ Q. Hesych. xvstÆ. ]xvsyh seems to point to xutÆ as lemma, and
the first thought is e]xvsyh. Grammar then seems to require ∂ §]x≈syh. That might just fit the space, allowing
that the line began further left than usual (see on 22ff.); but then there would be no room for the usual blank
between lemma and gloss. It seems likely, therefore, that ]xvsyh should be corrected to xvsth.
20-21. D: §kplage€w, µ taraxye€w, µ éhdisye€w Q.
22ff. These lines, as reconstructed, require more letters than expected on the left (one in 22 and 24, two in
26 and 27). Either the margin (as often) sloped outwards to the left, or the scribe wrote smaller.
22.
AS 161.11 lamprÒw, µ ı §p€shmow.
23.
D: katef€lhse Q. AS 105.27 t“ stÒmati katef€lhse. Even with extra space at the beginning, kat]
would be a tight fit; one might expect to see the end of the cross-bar, but in fact the papyrus before ef is
stripped at the upper level.
24.
D: Ωmagm°na: brotÚw går tÚ épÚ toË fÒnou aÂma: µ Ωmatvm°na Q. AS 52.34 pefoneum°na.
25.
This line looks rather like an interlinear addition, though by the main hand; but that is not sure, since
the line-space narrows towards the foot. I cannot place the damaged lemma in any verse between 480 and
486 (D comments only on 483 kh≈deÛ and 484 dakruÒen gelãsasa). My best idea is kagxa]l`vvn` for -lovn,
a misplaced entry for 514; D there glosses it xa€rvn (and similarly AS 94.2 on kagxalÒvsa). But there is a
further difficulty about the ending. In the lemma -vn` could perhaps be read; the gloss however looks most
like xairous`i`, which would imply kagxa]l`vvs`i`, which in turn might be read (assuming a malnourished
sigma). The lemma would then come from Il. 3.43, not from the immediate context at all.
26.
D: êxyou, lupoË Q.
27-28. D: parå tØn eflmarm°nhn Q.
col. ii
The likely supplements in 4, 5, 10-13, 15 offer a consistent right-hand margin.
1-3. Since the beginnings are lost, these may represent three different lemmata, or two, or indeed one with
the comment extending over more than one line. The first line must begin with a lemma, since i 26-27
contain a lemma and its gloss complete. Unless the sequence faltered, we must look for one or more items in
verses 487-505. In fact, I can find no lemma here which would suit ll. 2 or 3; this suggests that the comment
on the lemma in l. 1 spills over into the next two lines.
But even l. 1 presents difficulties. ]o was the third or fourth letter; after it, a space, not obviously
accounted for by the condition of the surface; after d, a slightly concave upright (damaged left-hand arc? but
e.g. iota perhaps not excluded). My only idea assumes a parablepsy: pr]o<iacei (487) (vac.) pro>di`a`[fyeirei.
If this guess is right, it becomes even more likely that l. 2, ]fyeir[, continues the same entry.
This is based on the note of D on 487: prodiafye€rei Q (-fye€rh R: -re› La). AS 135.31 (cf. 89.28)
shows what else could have been said, pro˝acen prodi°fyeiren. §mfa€nei d¢ tØn metÉ ÙdÊnhw aÈt«n
ép≈leian; ancient interpreters also debated whether pro- is superfluous, or signifies ‘before his time,’ see
scholia on Il. 1.3. But I do not see how to reconstruct in detail.
4.
t`ax`[esi: a wide tau, it seems, overwritten on original chi; after alpha, traces of an upright as well as
the high descending oblique which I have taken as chi. Did the compiler’s eye slip to an adjacent entry for
kudiÒvn (509), which has xa€rvn among its glosses (Hesych. etc)? D: tax°si Q.
5-6. Hesych. A 2503 katå toÁw glvssogrãfouw, épÚ toË êkow lambãnein ... ı d¢ ÉAristÒnikow, §n êxei
.... genÒmenow ... tin¢w d¢ [Mus: ton de H] êdhn plhrvye€w. For the various ancient interpretations, see
Erbse on Schol. Il. 6. 506; A.R. Dyck, Epimerismi Homerici II (Berlin-New York 1995) 179.
7.
D: §pikrot«n, §pikroÊvn to›w pos€n: ofl d¢ ne≈teroi §piyume›n tÚ kroa€nein, ka‹ ÉArx€loxow [fr.
272 W]. §pikroÊvn to›w pos€n, µ §piyum«n, µ xremet€zvn Q. The gloss began with e; the next trace looks
like part of a horizontal just below its top level; there is then space for no more than four normal letters to
2. VOCABULARY TO HOMER, ILIAD VI 383-519
9
reach the expected right-hand margin. Col. i shows that the scribe can write small when necessary; even then,
he can hardly have squeezed in more than one word, presumably ep`[iyumvn.
8-9. D: t“ kãllei toË s≈matow Q. AS 4.8 égla€aw tåw kallonåw ka‹ toÁw kÒsmouw ... . At the end of 8,
traces and fibres confused; the traces do not suggest t`v` or t`[vi, but the likely space (4 or 5 letters maximum)
seems too short for an alternative gloss. In kal[l ]ei the missing lambda occupies the space of two or three
letters; kal[lon]hi would suit the space better, but ]hi cannot be read.
10.
D: ı ¥liow, §piyetik«w ktl. Q (two explanations given).
11.
D: =ad€vw, tax°vw Q.
12.
D: …m€lei (explanation) Q.
13-15. D: prosf≈nhsiw filofronhtikØ [f. after édel. RVLa] nevt°rou édelfoË prÚw presbÊteron katå timÆn Q.
16-17. At the end of 16, elements of epsilon or the like (curve and crossbar); then space for up to three
letters. At the beginning of 17, a rounded letter, apparently phi, though its descender is hooked sharply to the
left.
D: proyumoÊmenon Q. D on 505 seÊato: Àrmhsen, µ Àrma Q. I have not found a direct parallel to
§form«nta, if that is rightly restored.
18-20. kayhkÒntvw must be intended, but the ink suits -tvn better.
D: kay∞kon. ke›tai d¢ ént‹ toË §nais€mvw, kayhkÒntvw Q. I find no parallel for the additional gloss
in 20.
21ff. t∞w Z— /, sc. =acƒd€aw (the numeral with a horizontal bar above, and an oblique stroke to the right).
This is the complete colophon, centred on the column; there is no space for more to the right, and no ink for a
second line. The complete title would be l°jeiw ÉIliãdow (t∞w) z∞ta, cf. O.Bodl. 2000. Perhaps these are
excerpts from a complete vocabulary with an overall title and then separate colophons for each book. The
same short form in the heading of a similar word-list, P.Oxy. LVI 3833(b).
To the left begins the coronis: a hooked vertical descending to 14 parallel horizontals of diminishing
width; then two long horizontals, crossed by ornamental elements. Below this the papyrus is broken; but the
lower margin of col. i is already quite deep (more than 3 cm.), and on the recto too the text seems to end clear
of the foot, so that there is some likelihood that the lower edge visible in col. i is the original edge. If so, there
was no space to repeat the upper part of the coronis in symmetry, as usual; and in any case, this upper part,
with its diminishing bars, would normally function as the lower part of the traditional structure.
On patterns of coronis, see G. Tanzi-Mira, “Paragraphoi ornate,” Aegyptus 1 (1920) 224-27; G.M.
Stephen, “The Coronis,” Scriptorium 13 (1959) 3-14; H.J.M. Milne - T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of
the Codex Sinaiticus (London 1938) 27ff. and pll. I-XLIII; C. Nordenfalk, Die spätantiken Zierbuchstaben I
(Stockholm 1970) 102ff.; W. Lameere, Aperçus de paléographie homérique (Paris-Bruxelles 1960) 190ff.
Lameere argues for a chronological development of the coronis; among his examples, the symmetrical form
dominates the Roman period; only in the IV century do we find the lower part of the traditional coronis
(horizontals diminishing) used independently. The coronis in P.Sijp. 2 may illustrate such a development, or
the ineptness of the copyist.